HOLUNGER 
pH8.5 

MILL RUN F3-1543 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 



SPEECH 



OP 



v^ 



HON. JOHN BELT. OF TENNESSEE, 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 3, 1Sj4, 

On the bill to establish the J^ebraska and Kansas Territories, and to repeal the Missouri 

Compromise. 



The Senate having under consideration the bill 

to organize the Terrilorits of Nebraska and 

Kansas — j 

Mr. BELL said: i 

Mr. Fuesident: I feel g;reatly embarrassed in 

undertaking to address the Senate at this lime, 

Carticulariy since the sentiment of the body has 
een bo decidedly expressed, not only in regard 
to the feature which is considered the most im- 
portant in the bill, but in regard to every other 
to which I propose to address my remarks. I 
regret, sir, that 1 feel under any necessity to 
trespass at all upon the attention of the Senate • 
upon this subject; and particularly when I ob- ' 
serve the solicitude of the friends of the bill for , 
its immediate passage. But the relations in which i 
I stand to this measure, I think, forbid me to for- 
bear. My own self-respect would forbid that I 
should forbear, however painful it may be to me 
to express any views in opposition to a measure 
which seems to commend itself to the almost i 
unanimous approval and support of my southern 
friends. 

Mr. President, no one in this body knows better ' 
than yourself the fact that I took decided grounds ; 
in opposition to the Nebraska bill at the last session ) 
of Congress. I opposed it with the greatest earn- '. 
estness. That bill contained no provision for the ; 
repeal of the Missouri compromise in any form 
or shape whatever. I wish to state now tlint I 
did not advise the introduction of that feature into 
the bill of this session. It so happened that I , 
was absent from the city when this bill was first : 
reported from the Committee on Territories, of 
which I was a member; but I was present when 
the amendment to the original bill, containing a , 
provision for the virtual repeal of the Missouri i 
compromise, was under consideration in the com- ! 
iiiiltee. It was the first time that the bill of this .. 
session in any shape fell under my notice. | 

The first notice I had that the repeal of the Mis- 
souri compromise was in contemplation by any 
one, was the introduction of the bill for that pur- 
pose by my friend from Kentucky, [Mr. Dixo.v;] j 



I not, as I was informed, that my friend meant to as- 
sume the responaibiliiy of originating such a prop- 

; osition, but to make the object e.xplicit and une- 

I quivocal, which seemed to "be implied in one pro- 

' vision of the bill as first reported. The honorable 
chairman of the Committee on Territories [Mr. 
Douglas] knows that I had barely time, when 
this bill was first brought to my notice in commit- 

' tee, to glance over its provisions. I saw that the 
objections I had urged to the Nebraska bill of the 
last session of Congress would apply to the 
measure then before the committee; and my im- 

I pressions against the expediency of introducing 
any clause affecting the Missouri Compromise 

I were strong; but as I had not considered the prop- 
osition in all its aspects,! agreed that theamend- 

j ment might be reported; but as the honorable 
chairman of the committee will do me the justice 

! to admit, I did so. with the express reservation 

I of the privilege of opposing the passage of the bill, 
if, upon a careful examination of the subject, I 

; should feel it my duty to do so. [Mr. Douglas 

: bowed his assent to the correctness of the suite- 

I ment] 

The question of the repeal of the Missouri com- 

' promise being thus fairly presented for considera- 
tion to the Senate; finding, upon inquiry, that the 
general sentiment of southern Senators was favor- 
al)leto the measure, brought forward, as it seemed 
to be, with the concurrence of a large number of 
northern gentlemen; approving, as I did, the prin- 
ciple of the compromise acts of 1850, and not 
wishing to separate myself from my friends, I 
resolved to take no step in opposition until I should 
have full time to consider the subject in all itj 
bearings, and be able to supply the deficiencies of 
my own judgment and experience from the lighu 
which might be shed by others on the suiiject, in 
the discussion. I have accordingly voted uni- 
formly with my southern friends, on all ques- 
tions of amendment, without any particular ex- 
amination on my part as to their wisdom or pro- 
priety, and leaving it to them to perfect the bill 
m any way they thought expedient and proper. 



I have listened with profound interest and atten- 
tion to all that has been said in debate on both 
sides of the question. I have sought to be en- 
lightened, in the private conferences of the friends 
of the bill, and have given the subject the most 
serious reflection, to see if I could discover any- 
sufficient grounds or reasons to overrule the ob- 
jections which had presented themselves to my 
mind, in favor of the course of my friends from 
the South. I make this statement, not that I 
suppose any views which I may now be able to 
present upon this subject will have any greater 
weight with the Senate, but to explain my silence i 
during the preceding discussions. I 

I now proceed to consider the provisions of this 
bill which appear to me to present the most serious 
and important objections. i 

My hrst objection to the Nebraslca bill of the < 
last session of Congress was, that there was no | 
necessity for the measure; that it was a novelty 
in the legislation of this country; that as far back j 
as I remembered it was an anomally in the practice 
of the Government to propose to organize territo- ! 
rial governments over a large extent of territory 
in which there were no white inhabitants. I mean 
no white inhabitants except those who were the 
officials of the Government, soldiers, missionaries, 
or licensed traders; no white population to demand 
the protection and security of a territorial govern- 
ment. On looking over the report of the Commis- 
sioner of Indian Affairs, I find the statement, 
that as late as October last, there were but three 
white men in the whole of that vast territory, ex- 
cept the class already alluded to. There may be 
four or five hundred, or more, now, for anything 
that 1 know; but I still think and maintain that 
this measure is uncalled for at this time. 

The answer given to that ol>jection at the last 
session — and I mean to deal fairly with the whole 
argument, so far as I have time to do it — by the 
honorable chairman of the Committee on Ter- 
ritories, was, that it -was important to invite 
settlements upon the great line of emigration 
from tlie western boundary of the States to Califor- 
nia and Oregon. I admit there was some force in 
this; but still I did not see that it was so import- 
ant as to amount to a necessity, or the case so 
urgent as to justify a departure from the long 
established policy of the Government, by organiz- 
ing territorial governments in advance of settle- 
ments, and particularly before the numerous wild 
Indian tribes inhabiting the country were recon- 
ciled to the measure by treaties, and a proper 
disposition was made of those emigrant tribes 
which held a portion of the country under the most 
solemn assurances on the part of the Government 
that they should never be exposed to the pressure 
of a white population. 

My second objection to the Nebraska bill of the 
last session was, that it proposed to organize a 
territorial government, and to throw open for 
settlement the whole extent of the country lying 
vrest of Missouri and Iowa, which is now Indian 
territory, guarded and- protected against the in- 
trusion of a white population by a statute of thirty 
sections, besides the faith of treaties applicable 
to numerous emigrant tribes; thus bringing an 
unnecessary pressure upon the wild Indian tribes, 
and tending to drive them to desperation, by the 
destruction of the principal source of their subsist- 
ence, the buffalo, which, you know, sir, will disap- 



pear upon the first clear crack of the frontier rifle, 
and the ominous appearance of the settler in the 
neighborhood of their haunts. 

I objected furtlier, sir, that in addition to the 
Indian hostilities likely to be provoked by encour- 
aging settlements, at irregular and distant inter- 
vals, over such an extent of territory now inhab- 
ited by wild Indians, the measure evidently con- 
templated the exhaustion of all the most desirable 
portions of the public domain in a few years, 
leaving no residuum to invite the enterprise or to 
furnish cheap homes to the young men and young 
families of the next generation. I held such a 
policy unwise, unstatesmanlike, and essentially 
selfish in the present generation. I was of the 
opinion that there was no necessity arising from 
a crowdecj_ population in the frontier States, or 
from any deficiency of good unappropriated lands 
in those States, to justify a measure which pro- 
poses to throw open so large an extent of new 
country for settlement. 

I contended that the population in the border 
States was yet small and sparse, and that there 
was within their limits an abundant supply of good 
lands, inviting settlement and cultivation — both 
by native citizens and foreign emigrants. Two 
years ago, I objected to the treaty for the pur- 
chase of the territory which belonged to the Sioux 
Indians, in the Territory of Minnesota, upon the 
ground that it would open a vast wilderness for 
detached and irregular settlement, when there 
was no adequate necessity for the measure; and 
I showed, if I remember aright, that there were 
then about one hundred and twenty millions of 
acres of good land surveyed and open to entry 
and settlement in the adjoining States, after de- 
ducting from ten to twenty per cent, for lands unfit 
for cultivation. Nevertheless that treaty, costing 
the Government some five millions of dollars, was 
ratified by the Senate; and an additional supply 
of between twenty-five and thirty millions of acres 
of land was thus provided for new settlements; and 
notwithstanding the late increase in the sale arul 
settlement of the public lands in the northwest, 
we may safely conclude that, at this moment these 
are not less than one hundred millions of acres, not 
of indifferent lands, but of good cultivable lands, 
still remaining to be taken up and occupied by 
emigrants, in the same section of the country. 

Now, under such circumstances as these, it does 
seem to me, Mr. President, that before a final vote 
is taken upon this bill, it is incumbent upon the 
honorable Chairman of the Committtee on Terri- 
tories, to show that there is a deficiency in the sup- 
ply of good and rich lands bordering upon the two 
Territories proposed to be established by this bill; 
and to furnish us with some evidence that there is 
a necessity for this measure arising from the pres- 
sure of the population in the border Stales. Where 
is the population that demands such a policy? Is 
it in Iowa, in Missouri, Wisconsin, or Minnesota.' 
Where are those accumulated masses of people 
rolled up by that tide of emigration, native aad 
foreign, of which we hear so much? I desire the 
Senator, if he pleases, to point to them. I have no 
doubt there is an eager and laudable desire, among 
all the settlers in the frontier States, to better their 
condition by the acquisition of more land in local- 
ities offering greater advantages than any within 
their reach in the States they now reside in. Some 
hundreds of indigent families in the border States, 



doubtless, would be greatly benefited by acquiring 
cheap Innds by right of preemption, or ns a donation 
under the provisions of ilie honieHteiul i)iil, if itHhiill 
become a law; and tiiey are now no doubt highly 
excited l)y the pros|iect held out to tliem by the 
pendency of the measure before the Senjite. Sir, 
this passion for the acnuisition of land belonp to 
the Anjjlo-Snxon stock, as we know; and I feel 
no disposition to censure or attach discredit to it, 
as it now exists on the fioniier. I'ut, ufler all, 
what proportion do these frontier citizens bear to 
the thousands of landless heads of families in the 
Atlantic States, aiul those on the western slope of 
the Alle^hanies, who have no chance or means of 
enterinij into an equal competition for the acquisi- 
tion of these lands. ', 
Again, I think the honorable Chairman of the 
Committee on Territories ou<;ht to present to the 
Senate some rational and practicable scheme for the 
{government and control of those numerous and 
wild tribes of Indians in the interior of the conti- 
nent; for the Territories contemplated by this bill 
extend into regions unknown and unexplored by . 
the frontier settlers. What will he do with the 
Great Blackfeet and other wild trilies behind the 
Black Hills? Then, in addition to these, there are 
the twenty or thirty thousand belongins; to the 
roving bands south of the Missouri. What will 
he do" with them ? What additional military force 
will be needed? What new military po.sts will be 
required ? and at what cost to theGovernment, are 
these wild and savage Indians to be ruled in pei^e, 
or overcome in war? for their resentment and hos- 
tility, it is hardly to be supposed, will be foreborne 
from the moment it is understood among them that 
the white man proposes to take up his abode upon 
their ancient hunting grounds. 

JVIr. President, it is most unfortunate for the 
public interest that, in a measure of this descrip- 
tion, embracing many provisions of great import- 
ance to the country, there .should be one of such 
paramount interest as to absorb the attention of 
the Senate, to the neglect of every other, however 
iiTiportant. I have been myself so much under the 
influence of this cause, so unfriendly to wise legis- 
lation, that it was only within the last ten days 
that my attention was arrested by the fact that the 
boundaries of the Territory of Nebraska, proposed 
to be organized by this bill, had been extended to 
the extreme northern boundary of the United 
States, whereas the Nebraska bill of the last ses- 
sion was limited to the forty third degree of north 
latitude. 

Here, sir, we have a proposition to organize two 
new territorial governments, extending through 
twelve desrees of latitude, and over eight or nine 
degrees of longitude — containing near five hundred 
thousand square miles, and three hundred millions 
of acres of land— territory in the aggregate suffi- 
cient for the formation of twelve new States, aver- 
agino- over forty thousand square miles to the 
State; and but for the desert and sterile tract, 
averaging some three hundred miles in extent, and 
running from the south boundary of these Terri- 
tories, nearly or quite to the British possessions, 
that number of States would, in tirae, be founded 
within the area embraced in this bill; but we may 
reasonably estimate, that eight or ten new States 
will ultimately be formed out of this vast territory. 
Will the honorable chairman of the committee 
explain to us the necessity for incorporating into 



this bill this large extent of territory, in addition 
to what was in the Nebraska bill of the last ses- 
sion ? It will not do to say that no more in meant 
than to embrace in the two territorial governments 
proposed by (his bill all the territory of the United 
Slates not included in the boundH of other territo- 
rial governmeniH heretofore provided. It must be 
borne in mind that this bill, as originally reported, 
proposed to u|>r)ropriate j^.lUU.OOO nimply to defray 
the expenses of negotiating with the Indian tribes; 
thus indicating what we are to expect after the 
passage of this bill; and also clearly enough the 
design of extending setttcmenta Kj)eedily into every 
part of the country embraced within the limita of 
these new Territories. 1 doubt not that the hon- 
orable Senator will be able to find some plausible 
answer to all tlie objections I have suggested to this 
i)rovision of the bill. I know his resources. I 
Know that he does not act without motives or a pur- 
pose, and as he has given us no expositions ot his 
views upon this point, I trust he will indulge me 
in conjecturing what they may be. That I mean 
nothing ofTensive or unkind to the honorable Sen- 
ator he will understand, when I say that, upon a 
full consideration of his policy as sliadowed forth 
in this bill, taking it altogether, I am at a lo.s3 
which most to admire, the genius or the boldness 
of his conception. And I can tell honorable Sen- 
ators around me, that when that Senator shall be 
arraigned before the tribunal of the public in the 
Northwest, for his advocacy of any feature of this 
bill which may be obnoxious to them, and he 
shall come to unfold the grandeur of his plans, 
and the skill with which he managed to combine 
in their support both the North and the South, 
they will speak trumpet-tongued in his defense. 
I trust the honorable Senator understands me; 
but I will nevertheless say to him, that although 
by the offer of a principle, an abstraction — a dan- 
gerous temptation to southern Senators — which I 
fear will prove utterly barren — bearing neither 
fruit nor flower, he has drawu into the support 
of his plans the whole South and Southwest, yet, 
if he will give me but a reasonable answer to the 
objections I have taken to this provision of the 
bill, I will go with him in its support. I admit 
his plans to be statesmanlike, if they can be 
accomplished without the sacrifice of other great 
public interests. If he will answer as I propose, 
I will go with him, in as hot haste, as he can de- 
sire, not only in extending the settlements on 
the margin of the Platte and the Kansas, but to the 
crest of the Rocky Mountains, thus indicating 
the route of a railroad to San Francisco, having a 
■ terminus at some point on the western boundary 
of Iowa or Missouri; and then I will go with him 
for the ifhmediate extension of settlements on the 
great line, passing through Minnesota Territory, 
crossing the waters of the Red River of the North ; 
passing thence across the Missouri, and up some 
of its tributaries to the summit of the Rocky 
Mountains; thence down its richly wooded west- 
ern slope, and onward to Pugel Sound — thus 
securing the early construction of another great 
railroad. 

I Mr. DOUGLAS. As the Senator seems to 
shadow forth some grand scheme which is to be 
developed here, and then points significantly to 
my appearing before the people, I feel it to be due 
to myself to say that I have no scheme that has 
., not already been avowed in my speech. 1 hare 



no defense to make at home that has not been 
avowed in my opening speech, and will be avowed 
again. No other ground will be taken; no other 
defense will be made. I think that it is due to 
myself to make that remark. 

iVIr. BELL. I do not make any charge against 
the honorable Senator that can be regarded as of- 
fensive. He may never be put upon his defense 
for his support of any feature in this bill; I trust 
he never will. 1 was pledging myself to the hon- 
orable Senator, that if he would give me any suffi- 
cient explanation or exposition of the points of 
objection I have taken as to the vast extent of! 
this country which he proposes to embrace in the I 
new Territories — the departure he purposes from I 
the long-established and guarded policy of the | 
Government in the interposition of some barrier 
to the intrusion of the white man, and the forma- ! 
tion of detached settlements in a country occupied 
by wild and savage Indian tribes, far beyond the ! 
regularly advanced line of frontier settlements; I 
and the throwing open at once unnecessarily the 
the whole public domain — .1 will go with him in i 
the accomplishment of his great schemes. 1 

I am aware that the Senator may inquire of 
me, if he should fail to answer all my objections ' 
satisfactorily: Whether I would let any consid-; 
>.:-ation due to sixty or seventy thousand wild In- j 
dians, who range over this vast territory, and sub- j 
sist upon the buffalo, keep it closed against the' 
settlement of the white man — native or foreigner.' 
I am aware that when 1 suggest the enlarged mili- ! 
tary force that may have to be sent into that 
country to suppress Indian hostilities, he may say 
to me: That as his is a grand project, and as no 
great plans are accomplished without great sacri- 
fices, would I impede the development and 
growth of the great Northwest by objecting to j 
whatever expenditure, either of money or of! 
blood, may be called for to subdue, or to extermi- 
nate, if need be, the Indian tribes that may obstruct 
the onward progress of the country ? He may in- 
quire, especially: Whether I would interpose any 
narrow land policy, and forejo present expansion, 
glory, and dominion, for the sake of posterity.' 
To all such inquiries, I would answer at once, by 
saying to him — Wait a season; be not so impa- 
tient to build up a great northwestern empire. In 
due time all your great plans of development will 
be accomplished, without any great sacrifices of any 
kind, and without conflicting with any other great 
public interest. In a few years, by the regular 
law of progress and settlement, which swept first 
all the Atlantic States, and then the eastern slope 
of thegreat valley of the Mississippi, of the Indian 
tribes which once held possession of them, by 
a greatly accelerated process, they will disappear 
from the plains, and the whole of the vast region 
beyond the Mississippi; and then, without any 
abrupt departure from the old and established 
policy of our Government in relation to the In- 
dians or the public domain, all obstructions will 
be removed. In a very few years the advancing 
lines of settlement on both sides of the Rocky 
Mountains, but moving in adverse directions, 
■will meet, overtake, and destroy both the buffalo 
and the Indians in their last retreats. 

If the honorable Senator will indulge me, and 
rot think it offensive, I must say here, because it 
occurs to me, that I think for a long time he has 
had a passion, amounting to a sort of mania, for 



the organizationof new Territories, and the found- 
ing of new States. Sir, to my certain knowledge, 
the honorable Senator drew up the Utah and New 
Mexico bills, and almost in the very terms in which 
they finally passed into laws. I believe he is also 
entitled to the credit of having originated the bills 
for the establishment of the Territories of Oregon, 
Minnesota, and Washington. It seems, from pres- 
ent indications, that it will not be long before he 
will have succeeded in organizing three or four 
more. Not content with the fame which may 
attach to him as condilor imperii, to borrow the 
language of Bacon, quoted by the learned and 
eloquent Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Ev- 
erett,] he is emulous of the title of clarissimiis 
condilor imperiorum. It seems to me that whatever 
other rewards he may receive from his country- 
men, if they should imitate the policy of the an- 
cient Greeks and Romans in bestowing honorary 
crowns on citizens who distinguished themselves 
in the service of their country, the honorable 
Senator will be entitled, not to one, but to ten 
civic crowns! I hope the honorable Senator will 
not be offended at anything I have said on this 
point. 
Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly not. [Laughter.] 
Mr. BELL. I come now to a further objection 
urged by me against the bill of the last session, 
that is, the provisions affecting the emigrant Indian 
tribes. I do not allude to it merely as an objection, 
but of one presenting an insuperable obstacle to the 
passage of this bill, unless it shall be found to 
contain some different provision. Mr. President, 
has it come to this, that we are at liberty to disre- 
gard our treaty stipulations with the Indian tribes, 
because they are a weak and feeble people — unable 
to resist our power — any more than we would our 
treaty obligations with the more powerful nations 
of the earth.' Can we, as a Government or a 
people, act on such a principle — set aside, at our 
discretion, and trample under foot the most ex- 
plicit and solemn guarantees? 

I know that is not the sentiment of any honor- 
able Senator here; but, sir, as to the Nebraska 
bill of last session, although the Indian tribes and 
their lands, included within the boundaries of 
the proposed Terrritory, were expressly excepted 
from the operation of that bill, the honorable 
chairman of the Committee on Territories v/ill 
remember that I denounced that bill, if it should 
pass, as a disgrace to the national character, and 
a wanton and deliberate violation of the public 
faith. In order to demonstrate the justice of that 
' denunciation, 1 must go into a brief review of the 
1 policy of Indian removal. 

This policy was suggested in 1808, by Mr, 
[Jefferson. His plan was to remove those mem- 
j bers of the several tribes, then residing east of 
! the Mississippi, who preferred to seek their sub- 
j sistence by the chase, to some suitable country 
1 within the limits of the United States west of the 
I Mississippi, and to protect those who were die- 
posed to cultivate the arts of civilized life in their 
' possessions east of the Mississippi, and also to en- 
! courage them in their efforts to improve their con- 
!dition. That policy was frustrated by the con- 
I flicting obligations contracted between Georgia 
i and the United States in the compact, by which 
i Georgia ceded her western territory. The plan 
suggested by Mr. Jefferson was consequently en- 
! larged, and the Government adopted the policy of 



removing entire tribes to the West. The treaty 
of 1817 \vn3 based, in part, upon this new policy. 
In 18"J5 Mr. Callioun, then Secretary of War, in 
a rejiort made upon ihut suliject, fust eu^j^ested 
llie unjiortance of ii syateniatic policy of Indian 
removal, eiulirrtcitigall the tribes in the States east 
of the Mis.'^issip]ii. The country west of the Mis- 
souri and Arkansa.s was by liini pointed out as 
projier to be selected, and set apart to the tribes 
which might be induced to emigrate; and he recom- 
mended that "tliere ought to be the strongest and 
most solemn assurance liiat the country given to 
them should be theirs as a permanent liome for 
themselves and their posterity, without being dis- 
turbed by the encroaclunents of our citizens." 

But the policy wasnotthen settled uponapernia- 
nenti)asi3. Tlie dillicuities and embarrassments in 
which the Government was involved with Georgia, 
and by the obstructions interposed in the execu- 
tion of tlie [H)licy of removal by two of the south- 1 
ern tribes — the Cherokees and the Creeks — caused 
the wliole subject to be examined and discussed in 
every part of the country. It gave rise to great agi- 
tation and excitement. Perhaps but few Senators 
here now liave any conception of llie intensity of 
theinterestand feeling which was awakened, partic- : 
ularly at the North, by the discussion of the ques- 
tions connected with this policy. The tables of the 
tsvo Houses of Congress groaned under memorials 
and remonstrances, presented from day to day du- 
ring the session of 1829- '30, against the policy of 
removal adopted and insisted upon by the Adminis- 
tration. And so itcontinued for months. Thefierce- 
ness of the struggle, and the obstacles to be over- i 
come in the settlement of the question, no man 
knows better than theSenatorfroniMichignn,[Mr. 
Cass.] Cut in March, 1S3U, the policy of Indian , 
removal received the sanction of both Houses of i 
Congress, and became the law of the land. By 
the act of 1830, the President was expressly au- 
thorized, in treating with the Indians for the ex- 
change of their lands east for lands west of the 
Mississippi, " solemnly to assure tlie tribe or na- ; 
tion witli which the exchange is (might be) made, 
that the United States will (would) forever secure 
and guaranty to them and their heirs and succes- 
sors the country so exchanged with them." ; 

The arguments by which the policy of Indian 
removal was sustained will be found in numerous 
official documents, in the speeches of members of , 
Congress, and in the public journals of the day. 

The grounds upon which the argument was 
maintained for the removal of the Indian tribes 
were taken from the early, as well as the more re- 
cent, liistory of the country. It was contended 
that all experience had demonstrated that as long 
as the Indians remained in contact with, and sur- 
sounded by, a white population, they were sure ' 
to contract all the vices, without adopting any of 
the virtues of civilized communities; and that as 
long as they remained in tliat condition, their early 
extinction was inevitable; that their only escape ; 
from this destiny depended upon their removal to 
a country where they would be protected by the 
Government from all the evils and annoyances to 
which they were thus exposed, in all future time. 
The country to wliich they were invileJ to remove 
was to be Indian country forever, or as long as 
they e-Kisted as tribes; the white man was never 
to intrude upon their lands, or form settlements 
arouiid them; no territorial or State governments . 



were ever to include them within their boundaries. 
In their new homes tliey were to be free to be gov- 
erned by their own law.s and customs, unle.s.s iliey 
tiiought profier to change them; never to be in- 
terfered witli by the Government, but for their pro- 
tection in the enjoyment of ilieir privileges. 

This further argument was urged in 8U|)|)ort of 
the policy of removal, that the Indian tribes 
which might emigrate to the West, on the condi- 
tions held out to them, would never again be mo- 
lested and liarassed by any ntw applications for 
cessions of their lands, or to remove to a new 
country; for the more fcagacious chiefs always 
knew that their people could seldom withstand 
the influences which their Great Father could 
bring to bear upon them when he wished to treat 
with them on any fc-uliject. 

These were the arguments by which the policy 
of Indian removal was sustained by Congress, 
and which, in time, reconciled the whole country 
to its adoption. These were also the arguments 
and encouragements held out to the various Indian 
tribes residing in the States east of the Mississippi, 
to induce them to emigrate to the West, as will 
appear from the talks held with them, from the in- 
structions to commissioners appointed to treat 
with them, and, in part, from the stipulations con- 
tained in the treaties made with them. In some 
of those treaties the Indians rerjuired that a guar- 
antee iigainst the establishment of any territorial 
or State government, to include their lands, should 
be specifically stipulated in the treaties made with 
them. One treaty containing such a guarantee, 
ratified by the Senate, is sufficient to show the 
policy of the Government, and its obligations to 
all the emigrant tribes. Well, sir, under the per- 
suasion and encouragement lield out to the Indians 
by the promises, as.surances, and guarantees I 
have enumerated, some twelve or fifteen different 
tribes entered into treaties, and removed to the 
territory assigned and dedicated to them west of 
Missouri and Arkansas. Some eight or ten of 
those tribes, numbering, at this time, eight or ten 
thousand souls, received allotments of land west 
of Missouri, most of them occupying the territory 
embraced in the Nebraska bill of the last session, 
and the Territory of Kansas proposed to be or- 
ganized by the bill now under consideration. 

And how did the provisions of the bill of the 
last session stand in relation to the obligations and 
guarantees of the Government, assumed and given 
in the execution of the policy of Indian removal? 
That bill proposed to organize and establish a ter- 
ritorial government, including within its bounda- 
ries all the emigrant tribes west of the State of 
Missouri, and forthwith to authorize the settle- 
ment of the unoccupied lands, and thus to sur- 
round the several Indian tribes with a white popu- 
lation, and consequently to bring upon them all 
the evils which they had to encounter in the States 
whence they emigrated. It was for these reasons 
that I objected to and denounced the measure. 

There was another objection which I might have 
taken to the Nebraska bill of the last session, but 
which I did not because I would not be the first 
to throw down a gage, inviting a renewal of that 
sectional conflict which shook tlie confidence of 
thousands of good citizens in the stability of the 
Union in 1850; and which I trusted never to see 
renewed in this Ciiamber, or in the country. 
There is no longer any reason — and unfortunately, 



6 



Certainly. 
It was so by the established 



as I think — that I should forbear to sug:gest it. It 
was this: From the date of Mr. Calhoun's re- 
port, in 1825, and more especially since the act of 
1830, sanctioning the policy of Indian removal, 
and the ratification of numerous Indian treaties, 
inade in pursuance of that policy, the country west 
of Arkansas and Missouri has been regarded as an 
Indian territory, dedicated and guarantied as a 
permanent residence for all the tribes which might 
think proper to emigrate to it on the terms held 
out to them by the Government. And here I 
would be pleased that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. 
Chase] would answer a question which I want to 
ask him, if he deems it worthy of a reply. I 
would like to know why and upon what authority, 
in his late appeal to the people on the subject of 
this bill, he designated the territory south of the 
line of 36° 30' as Indian territory, as distinguished 
from the territory north of that line? 

Mr. CHASE. I will simply ask the Senator 
if it is not Indian territory ? 

Mr. BELL. But the other is Indian territory 
also. 
Mr. CHASE 
Mr. BELL, 
policy. 

Mr. CHASE. The territory south of 36° 30' 
was Indian territory, and proposed to be left as 
such by the bill. The bill, if it is passed, would 
convert the territory north of 36° 30' into organ- 
ized territory, excluding from it, of course, those 
portions which are inhabited by Indian tribes not 
ceded by treaty. 

Mr. BELL. No man, from thereadingof that 
address, would have supposed that the territory 
north of 36° 30' was admitted to be Indian terri- 
tory. 

"To resume my argument. It so happened that 
this territory was divided into equal parts by the 
line of- the Missouri compromise, 360 3G'; thus 
taking from the South a territorial area sufficient 
to form one more slave State, and from the North 
a territory large enough to form one more free 
State, according to the terms of the Missouri com- 
promise. 

The great object of securing a country for the 
exclusive and perpetual inheritance of the Indian 
tribes, when driven from their original posses- 
sions, was thus accomplished without any jealousy 
between the North and the South, growing out of 
the slave question. The South, in surrendering 
the territory west of Arkansas, saw that the North 
made an equivalent concession on its part. I 
think I may say, from what I know upon the sub- 
ject, that but for the perfect equality of the ar- 
rangement, as between the North and the South, 
the policy of Indian removal with the principles 
and guarantees upon which it was founded, would 
probably never have been sanctioned by Congress. 
Unfortunately for the permanent success of this 
arrangement, it so happened that while the pop- 
ulous tribes wliich emigrated from the southern 
States to the country west of Arkansas, occupied 
the whole of that portion of the Indian territory 
lying south of the line of 30° 30', from various 
causes it turned out that a much smaller number 
emigrated to that part of the Indian territory lying 
north of that line; and hefice the present embar- 
rassment of the country upon this subject. The 
eight or ten thousand of the emigrant Indians, 
together with about an equal number of indigen- 



ous Indians, inhabiting the country west of Mis- 
souri, do not seem to justify the exclusion of 
the white race from the large residuum of unset- 
tied country around them; and sooner or later, 
whatever be the fate of this bill, they will be com- 
pelled to yield to the inexorable law of progress, 
and seek yet another and a new home, if they 
can find one, or perish where they are, under the 
operation of those causes which have heretofore 
proved so destructive to their race. 

What conclusion do I draw from all this? Why, 
that the territory west of Missouri, having been 
set apart and dedicated as a permanent habitation 
for the Indian tribes, and so regarded for the last 
twenty or thirty years — having the sanction of 
law and numerous Indian treaties to sustain it — 
acquiesced in during all that period by both the 
North and the South, without alteration or dis- 
turbance; and this being free territory by the 
terms of the Missouri compromise, and the equiv- 
alent conceded by the North for the humane 
purpose of providing a permanent possession for 
the Indian tribes, for a like concession made by the 
South of slave territory on the other side of the 
line of 3GO 30', it amounts to a compact or un- 
derstanding, part expressed and in part implied, 
between the North and the South, carrying with 
it obligations and a binding force, if, of any less 
validity than any other compact, I think it 
it would plague the ingenuity of the most sophis- 
tical mind to prove it. Therefore, if this territory 
is not to remain Indian territory, equal justice to 
the South would seem to require that such guaran- 
tees should be voluntarily conceded by the North 
as would secure to the South the formation of a 
slave State, should the country turn out to be 
adapted to slave labor, as an equivalent for the 
loss of one south of the line of the Missouri com- 
promise. And if the experiment should show 
that the country presented no adequate induce- 
I ment to the introduction of slave labor, and it 
I should become a free State, then the South could 
, not complain if the North should profit by those 
! circum.stances which now seem to demand that 
i this territory should change its destination, and be- 
come the possession and abode of the white instead 
I of the red man. 

I have yet to consider whether the provisions of 
I the present bill relieve it from the objections which 
; I had to the Nebraska bill of the last session of 
i Congress. Does the bill under consideration vio- 
late theu obligations which the Government has 
entered into with the emigrant Indian tribes? The 
': original bill reported by the Committee on Terri- 
! tories contained a provision excepting the lands 
1 held by the Indian tribes from its operation, in the 
precise terms, I believe, of the Nebraska bill of 
i the last session; yet it includes all the emigrant 
[ tribes west of Missouri within its boundaries, ex- 
I cept two or three small tribes on the west line o. 
' Missouri and near the Cherokee boundary, and, 
like the bill of the last session, authorizes the 
[ formation of white settlements around the lands 
i occupied by the Indians. So far the same objec- 
i tions exist to this bill that I urged against the bill 
of last session. But it is contended that all objec- 
j tions are removed by the amendment suggested by 
j the Committee on Indian Affairs, and engrafted 
upon the bill. It is in these wordsr 

"Jlndbeit further enacted, That all treaties, laws, and 
I Other eugagements made by the Government of the United 



Ktates with the Indian tribes iiihnbiliiiR the territory cm- 

braced wiihiii this bill, isluill be tiiilhrully and rii,'idiy ob- 
served, nolwitlistundiiig unytliin;; cuiitniiied in tlii.-i net." 

The nniendiiient provides tlmt " till treaties, 
law, ami other engaireinenls mnde hy the Gov- 
ernmeiil of the Uiiiteil Stales witli liie Indian Irihes 
ifiliabitiii;; the territory etiihrared within ihiH 
bill, shall l>e faitlifully and ri;;iil!y observed." 
Tlie stiiHilations and eiijragenieiits enteied into 
by tlie Government with tiie einij^rant tribes in- 
liabiling the territory embraced in this bill were, 
among otliers, that those tribes should never be 
exposed to the evils of a wliite population around 
them, and that no '}'errUorial or Slale ^oveniinent 
should ever be onjanized or estiiblished including 
theirhiiulswitliin its boundaries. The bill proposes 
to establish a territorial government including these 
Indian tribes within its boundaries, and, at the 
same time, opens the whole of the country not al- 
lotted to, or occupied by the Indians, to settlement 
by the whites. Yet the amendment provides that all 
treaty stipulations and en2:jifi;enients, and obliga- 
tions of every kind entered into by the Government 
with those Indian tribes, shall be faithfully and 
rigidly observed ! 1 would ask, without meaning 
the slightest oflense to any gentleman, could any- 
thing be more preposterous tlian the argument that 
this amendment reinoves all objections to the bill, 
when by the very terms of the bill those obligations 
are violated and set at nought. It is a mockery 
to say that the engagements of the Government 
with the Indians shall be faithfully and rigidly ob- 
served, when the whole scope and object of the bill 
is indirect and open violation of those engagements. 
To show what were the leading principles and 
guarantees under which all the emigrant tribes in 
the country west of Missouri and Arkansas were 
induced to exchange their lands east of the Missis- 
sippi for others west, I will read a clause from the 
treaty made with the Cherokees in 1835. The third 
article of that treaty contains this clause : 

" The I'nited States hereby covenniit and agree that tlic 
lands ceded to the Clierokee nation in the I'orejtoinirarliele, 
sliall, in no future time, without their consent, be included 
within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any State or 
Territory."' 

This exhibits the true character of the policy 
and principles adopted by the Government in set- 
ling apart the country west of Missouri and Ar- 
kansas as a permanent and exclusive Indian liab- 
italion. To show that there was no distinction in 
the principles or policy of the Government in 
allotting portions of the country west of Mis- 
souri, and west of Arkansas, to tribes emigrating 
from the States east of the Mississippi, 1 propose 
to read from a treaty made with the Senecas and 
Shawnees of Ohio, made at Lewiston, in 1831, 
and now resident in the territory west of Missouri, 
a clause similar to the one I have just read from 
the treaty with the Cherokees. Tlie tenth article 
of this treaty contains the following stipulation: 

" And the United States pufffantee tliat said lands sliall 
never be included witliin the limits of any State or Terri- 
tory, nor subject to the laws thereof." 

A similar guarantee is to be found in the treaty 
made with the Shawnees of Wapaghkonetta in 
Ohio, in the same year; and in two or three other 
treaties made at different dates with tribes which 
emigrated to the territory west of Missouri. 

Mr. SEBASTIAN. 1 beg to interrupt the 
Senator a moment. 1 understand him to be speak- 
ing of the treaties which contain, in terms, the 



stipulation that the tribe shall never be included 
within the boundaries of any State or Territory. 
That class is a small one. The Cherokees to whom 
he alluded are not embraced in the bill. The 
Shawnees of Wapaghkonetta have lost the bin- 
efit of a similar stipulation by incorporation witii 
the Missouri batid, by which they surrendered 
all their nationality and their treaty stipulation 
by the same act. Congress, a year ago, allowed 
them a compcnsatifm of ^(JU.UUt) or JlTO.UOO for 
the lands they were to have had under the treaty 
with them. The other Shnv/nees are not v/ilhin 
the limits of the proposed Territory. I admit that 
a small trilie of Ottowas, numbering two hundred 
souls, and owning thirty-four thousand acres of 
land, still remain, and are protected by the stipu- 
lation in their treaty, similar to that of the Chero- 
kees. This obstacle, such as it is, still stands. 

Mr. BELL. The honorable Senator says iha t 
the guarantee in the last treaty I referred to, made 
with the Shawnees of WapagliK'onetta, was ab- 
rogated. IIow.' They were induced to give up 
their lands east, and sell them upon certain terms, 
and with the same assurance upon which other 
Indians gave up their lands east, namely: that 
they should have a jiermanent home in the coun- 
try to which they agreed to remove, and that their 
new home should never be included within the 
boundaries of any State or Territory. They were 
to have an allotment of land out of the lands ceded 
to the Shawnees of Missouri in 1825, or, if they 
were not satisfied with that arrangement, they 
were to have other lands, in the same country, 
west of Missouri. Cut they agreed with their 
kinsmen to live in common with them on their 
lands, and set up a claim upon the Government for 
the value of the lands they were promised in the 
treaty, and their claim was allowed. How does 
that deprive them of the protection of the guaran- 
tee that they should never be surrounded with a 
white population, relyitig upon which, they ceded 
their lands in Ohio. By no technical, by no in- 
genious interpretations, can theGovernment avoid 
the obligation entered into with them. 

But my friend reminds me that the Cherokees 
do not reside in the territory embraced in this bill. 
I did not pretend that they do. 1 read a clause 
from the treaty with them to show the principles 
upon which the policy of the Indian removal was 
adopted by the Government in 1830; and I read 
clauses from the treaties made with the Shawnees 
of Wapaghkonetta, in Ohio, and one made in the 
same year with the Senecas and Shawnees of the 
same State; and I referred to others, to show that 
there was no difference recognized by the Gov- 
ernment as to the terms and conditions upon which 
the Indians were removed between the country 
west of Arkansas and that west of Missouri. Any 
treaty made with a tribe which took an allotment 
of land west of Missouri, with a similar guarantee 
against the establishment of a State or Territory 
including their lands, and that treaty, ratified by 
the Senate, f.xed the destination of that country. 
It was to be Indian territory, and no other, as long 
as a single tribe existed which emigrated to it under 
that guarantee. That was its destination, as un- 
derstood by the Senate and by the Executive, 
when the treaty was made with the Shawnees of 
Wapaghkonetta, with the Senecas and Shawnees 
of Lewiston, and with the Ottowas and the two 
other tribes which emigrated to the territory west of 



8 



Missouri; and whether one of those treaties has 
been abrogated or not, or whether one or more of 
the tribes treated with upon the same terms hap- 
pens to be included within the boundaries specified 
in this bill or not, is not material; tliey emigrated 
to the territory west of Missouri, and now reside 
there. My argument is, that all the emigrant 
tribes which removed after 1830 were induced to 
remove under the same assurances and guarantees, 
whether specifically stated in the treaties made 
with them or not; and that it would be a fraud upon 
the Indians to give a different interpretation to the 
obligations of the Government. The nature and 
extent of the obligations contracted with the In- 
dian tribes which emigrated to the country west 
of Missouri and Arkansas, in conformity with the 
policy of Indian removal, adopted in ]830, and 
the proper interpretation and construction of those 
obligations, will be. best explained by referring to 
what was said upon the subject by a man who 
was the chief and most responsible actor in all 
that relates both to the adoption and execution of 
that policy. In the message of the President of 
the United States [General Jackson] to Congress 
in 1835, we find the follov/ing passages connected 
with this subject: 

"The plan of removing the aboriginal people who yet 
remain wiiliin the settled portion of the United States to 
the country west of the Mississippi river approaches its 
consummation. 

"All preceding experiments for the improvement of the 
fndians have failed. It seems now to be an established 
fact that they cannot live in contact vvitli a civilized com- 
mnnity and pro-sper. 

" The necessary measures for their political advancement, 
and for their separation from our citizens, have not been 
neglected. The pledge of the United Stales has been given 
by Congress that the country destined for the residence of 
this people shall be forever ' secured and guarantied to 
thein.'^ 

"A country west of Missouri and Arkansas has been as- 
signed to them, into which the white settlements are not to 
be pushed. No political communities can be formed in that 
extensive region, except those which are established by the 
Indians themselves, or by the United States for them and 
with their concurrence. A barrier has been raised for their 
protection against the encroachments of our citizens, and 
guarding them, as far as possible, from those evils which 
iiave brought them to their present condition." 

Mr. President, I must be allowed to feel more 
than a common sensibility to any violation of the 
obligations of the Government contracted with the 
Indian tribes. When this whole subject of Indian 
rights and Indian wrongs was brought to the notice 
of the country and thoroughly discussed — our rela- 
tions with them claiming to be theguardianofthese 
children of the forest, and they looking up to the 
President as their Great Father — I was chairman 
of the Committee on Indian Affairs in the Flouse 
of Representatives, and had to bear my full share 
of responsibility in sustaining the policy of Indian 
removal against the attacks of its opponents. 

I have always differed from my friend from 
Texas, [Mr. Houston,] and others, who have 
maintained that the Indian race is susceptible of 
as high a development of their mental faculties as 
the white race, and that all their misfortunes are 
to be attributed to the encroachments of the white 
man upon tli eir lands. 1 have never been so hope- 
ful of the results of the experiments which are 
making to civilize and elevate their condition. I 
have always held the opinion, that all the Govern- 
ment can do for them, under any plan which may 
be adopted to wean them from their ancient habits, 
and to induce them to cultivate the arts of civilized 



life, will have no other result than to postpone the 
period of their final extinction; and that, in the 
meantime, imbecility, despondency, and indo- 
lence, will be their characteristic traits. I believe 
I' that the highest development of Indian character 
is only to be found in their normal or primitive 
condition, and before their proud spirit has been 
bowed by conquest. 

But, sir, the question is not now, whether we 
can elevate and improve the condition of the In- 
dian tribes by encouraging them to adopt the arta 
and habits <of civilized life. It is, shall we keep 
our faith with them? We can, at least, do that. 
We can, if we are disposed, maintain them in the 
possession of a country to which they were in- 
duced to emigrate by the most solemn assurances 
of the Government of the United States that it 
should be to them and their children an inherit- 
ance forever. 

Well do I remember, Mr. President, the discus- 
sion upon this subject more than twenty years ago, 
alluded to by the learned and eloquent Senator 
from Massachusetts, [Mr. Everett;] and well do 
I remember, also, the doubts expressed by the 
more temperate of the opponents of the policy of 
Indian removal as to its results; and the taunts 
and jeers of the more violent, who denounced it 
as an expedient invented to extricate the Admin- 
istration from the difficulties and embarrassments 
brought upon it by the insatiate craving of the 
white man; and who. insisted that the Indian would 
never realize the hope of that new land of promise 
held out to him as an inducement to emigrat* — 
that the Indians would find no home, no resting 
place — never. I thought they were mistaken. 

Before Heave this point of the subject, Mr. Pres- 
ident, I must express the surprise with which I 
have been struck by one circumstance attending the 
pendency of this measure before Congress. It is 
known here, and it must be known throughout the 
country, that the passage of this bill will affect 
very seriously the welfare of the Indian tribes 
within the bounds of the new Territories proposed 
to be organized; and every diligent inquirer must 
see that there is a question of public faith involved 
in the provisions of this bill in relation to the 
, emigrant tribes west of Missouri. Several hon- 
orable Senators have spoken strongly and elo- 
quently of the duty of observing sacredly and 
inviolably all the obligations attaching to a certain 
compact, or understanding, entered into many 
years ago between the two great sections of the 
Union; and some of them, in their appeals to the 
people upon the subject, denounce any violation 
of that understanding as dishonorable. Yet when 
it is proposed to violate the public faith plighted to 
the feeble Indian tribes on the frontier, not a word 
is interposed to save the honor of the country. 
We hear of no appeal to the sympathy or the 
justice of the country in their behali^. While the 
Senate Chamber rings with stirring appeals upon 
the subject of the wrongs of the African, the 
wrongs of the Indian are passed by in silence! 
No memorials are presented in his behalf. Yet, 
are not these Indians, men.' Are they not our 
brethren, of the human race, like the African.' Are 
they not born with the same equality of rights — 
inalienable as those of the African or the white 
man.' 

Here, sir, I must be allowed a further digression. 
We have heard, in the course of this debate, allu- 



le 



sion made to Wilberforce; the obloquy he in- 
curred in hi;;h ]ilace9, his triunipli, at lust, in tlie 
abolilioii of the slave trade and of shivery in the ! 
British Colonies. The allusion, of course, su<;;geHt8 | 
to us his fine accomplishments as a scliolar, the 1 
excellence of his character as a man, and the bril- 
liant fame conceded to hiiu iiy liie wlmle class of 
rhilanlliro|iists and sentimentalisls, as their j;reat 
eader. Well, sir, we doubtless have aspirants 
in this country to the fame achieved by Wilber- 
force; but 1 doubt, sir, whether they will ever attain 
the elevnted rank in the scale of distinction to 
which Wilberforce and many of his supporters 
rose by their ellorts for the suppression of the . 
slave trade, as well as the abolition of slavtry in 
tlie Jiritish Colonies. When the act for the aboli- 
tion of slavery in the colonies was carried in the 
British Parliament in 183.3, and thej question of 
indemnity to the slaveholder came up, there was 
scarcely a dissenting; voice raised agamst the pro- 
priety and justice of the proposition; and twenty 
millions of pounds sterliii<ij — one hundred millions 
of dollars — were promptly voted for that purpose. 
Whatever moral guilt, said the great leaders of the 
abolition movement, might attach to the slave- 
holder, the e;reatest share of the guilt and resjionsi- 
bility rested with the Government wliich encour- , 
aged and established slavery in the colonies. 

But when, sir, have we ever heard from any 
one of our American Wilberforces, our profes- 
sional jdiilanthropists and slavery agitators, an 
avowal so liberal and just? When have any of 
them, in their fierce denunciations of slavery as a 
curse to the country, and a stain upon the national 
cdiaracter, ever conceded the ])rinciple of indem- 
nity, as a just and necessary attendant of aboli- 
tion ? When has any one of them had the liberality 
and the manliness to declare that the guilt of 
slavery in the United States, whatever it might be, 
was justly chargeable to the mother country, 
and to the colonies of the North as much as to 
thoee of the South ? How strikingly greater the 
elevation of tone and sentiment, conspicuous in 
the leaders of abolition in Great Britain, than in 
this country — ^how immeasurably elevated the one 
over the other in all that constitutes true great- 
ness and nobility of purpose. 

While upon this subject, I be^ to refer to a re- 
m«rk made by the Senator from Massachusetts, 
[Mr. SiMKER,] which now occurs to me as proper 
to be noticed. That gentleman told us that sla- 
very in the^South was destined to early extinction, 
because the conscience of the civilized world was 
against it. Sir, we have heard, before now, a 
similar announcement by another gentleman, made 
again and again. We were then told that slavery 
in the South was a doomed institution, and the 
South was solemnly warned to prepare for the 
fate which awaited it. We were then told that 
slavery must speedily disappear, because the seu- 
timent of tlie civilized world was against it. Now 
we are told that a more powerful agent than a 
mere sentiment is enlisted against slavery, and 
that it is under the irresistible power of the con- 
Bcicnce of the civilized world that slavery in the 
South must yield. I wish to say a word or two 
as to the particular qualities and power of that con- 
science of the civilized world, with which the slave 
institution of the Souih is threatened. 

At this moment England and France, and per- 
haps other States of western Europe, the very 



center or civilization, are leagued together, and 
are buckling on their armur to uphold the Ottoman 
dominion, the most corrujit, o|)pres8ive, and de- 
basing Government of the earth; and one which 
ui)holds slavery and the slave Irude in its most 
odious and revolting forms — one founded on a 
social organization, in whir.h slavery is so deeply 
engrafted, that it may be well doubled whether it 
could exist wilhoulii. TlieBubitclHof slavery in 
Turkey are not Africans only. It is a well estab- 
lished fact that there is a regular trade between 
Constantinople and the eastern coast of the Black 
Sea in white .siaves. Russia, when she conquered 

i Georgia, abolTshed that infamous traftic within its 
limits; but those invincible champions of freedom, 
the Circassians, still tolerate the Irnde. Yet the 
conscience of western Europe is so little affected by 

: this and other enormities in the practice of the 

! Turkish Government, that they are not only ready 
to arm in its defense, iiul the proposition is gravely 

' considered whether what they now call the Otto- 
man Empire should not be received as a coetiiud 
into the family of European and Christian States. 

i The honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Sumn'kr] took occasion to stale, in his speech, that 
slavery was rapidly disa)ipearing in every other 

! part of the world except ihe United States. Th« 
Sultan of Turkey, he says, has signified his di-s- 
pleasure at it; and, under the auspices of Great 
Britain, the Emperor of Morocco, and the Beys 
of Tunis and Tripoli, have agreed to abolish th« 
slavetradein theirdominions. Well, sir, iheSuItan 
has prohibited ihe slave market in Constantinople; 
but you have only to go a few miles out of th* 
city to find a market, both for white and black 
slaves, limited only by the means of purchasers. 

< It is no doubt true, also, that the other Mohamme- 
dan Slates and dependencies of the Sublime Port* 
have promised to discourage or abolish the slave 
trade; but there does not exist iheslightest evidence 
that the trade in their dominions is less active than 
formerly. 

! The truth is, that the Turkish Government for 
many years past has been at nurse to England and 
France, and great pains have been taken, espe- 
cially by England, to dress her up for European 
exhibition and sympathy. The Grand Sultan has 

i been prevailed upon to promulgate an organic law, 

declaring perfect equality before the law between 

all his subjects, Musselman, Christian, and Jew; 

but in practice it is a dead letter. 

Various other reforms have been announced 

! with the same result ; and , except that in Constan- 

^tinople, always under the eyes of ihe British and 
French Embassadors, there is more security 
against insult and oppression to the Christian, 
less of the ferocious and sanguinary passions prev- 
alent than formerly — a less frequent use of the bow 
siring, the scimeiar, and the sack — there has been 
no substantial improvement. All the vital ele- 
ments of government and society^all the practices 
of the Pashas, and other subordinate functionaries 
throughout the provinces, exhibit the same rotten- 
ness at bottom — the same corrupt, oppressive, and 

i debasing inllivences. 

Now, sir, no intelligent man in Europe supposes 
that the independence of the western States of that 

' continent will be in any danger from the conquest 
of Constantinople by Russia; and as to any mate- 
rial derangement of an existing balance of power, 

ij founded upon any principle of equality, as between 



1€ 



the different States of Europe, which the success 
of Russia may occasion, we know that there ex- 
ists no such balance of power. Yet, these are 
the pretexts for the interference of Great Britain 
and France in behalf of Turkey. But, sir, Louis 
Napoleon needs a war that is popular with France. 
He has also his ambitious projects, which might 
be thwarted if Russia should enlarge her resources 
by the acquisition of any part of Turkey; and the 
colossal empire of England in India may be in 
some dangei-,at a future period, if the Czar should 
succeed in his present projects. Hence it is that 
we find a war with Russia has become popular in 
Great Britain; and not a single remonstrance is 
lieard from the philanthropists and abolitionists 
against the policy of maintaining the power and in- 
dependence of the Ottoman Empire, on the ground 
that it upholds slavery and the slave trade. 

Sir, I do not mean to make myself the partisan 
of Russia by anything I have said upon this sub- 
ject; nor do I mean to disparage the proper con- 
science of western Europe. But what I do mean, 
is to showthat this co7if:cicnce of the civilized v/orld, 
spoken of by the honorable Senator from Mas- [ 
eachusetts, and especially the conscience of the 
philanthropists and abolitionists of England, is an ; 
essentially practical and conservative guide ofj 
conduct whenever any great question is pending i 
which concerns the preservation of British power ;. 
and supremacy. 1 do not find fault with them i 
or their conscience. 1 rather respect them more. ! 
Yes, sir, the British Wilberforces of the present; 
day, without renouncing their anti-slavery prin- 1 
ciples, or discarding their conscience, hold both 
subordinate to the great interests of the British 
Empire. While they continue to extend their 
patronizing hand to the leaders of slavery agita- 
tion in the United Slates, their patriotism forbids 
them to distract the councils of their own country 
by their agitations and remonstances. I could 
wish, sir, that their example could be imitated in 
this country. 

A word to my friend [Mr. Wade] who sits by 
my side. He was very severe the other day 
upon the slaveholders of the South — characterizing 
them as aristocrats. Let me say to him that, 
having made that speech, if he will visit England, 
he will find himself quite a lion with the proudest 
aristocracy of the world. I will venture to say 
that he will be taken by the hand by my lord the 
Earl of Carlisle, who would doubtless insist upon 
having the honor of presenting him at Court. 

Mr. WADE. I want no such honor myself. 

Mr. BELL. I only mean to say, that I think 
my friend would see that aristocrats, after all, are 
not so bad a class as he supposed. 

_ Mr. President, I now approach the considera- 
tion of another provision in this bill, which, in 
the opinion of many, possesses an importance 
paramount to all others; one that is held to be so H 
important to the welfare of the country, and espe- jj 
dally to the South, that some of my southern!! 
friends have expressed the opinion, in our private i 
and friendly conferences, that a southern man j 
who should fail to support it would be considered {: 
a traitor to the interests of the South; and that, ': 
under such circumstances, I should waive all scru- !' 
I les about the violation of treaties or compacts of i 
pr.y kind — all my objections to the bill, however ,i 
important I may deem them. I take no exception [\ 



to the morality of this view of duty; for if it can 
be shown that the principle of non-intervention 
incorporated in this bill will produce the happy 
consequences which its more ardent supporters 
contend it will, though it may be a nice question 
in casuistry, a Senator might well consider it one 
ot those cases of overpowering necessity and in- 
terest to the country to which all constitutional 
and other scruples or objections should yield. 
ITpon such principles some of the most eminent 
Tiien of the country have heretofore ftit tiiemselves 
justified in acting. 1 therefore take no exception to 
the course of any of my southern friends upon this 
subject, believing, as they no doubt do, that it is a 
measure of all the importance which they ascribe 
to it. It was in view of the overruling necessity 
and importance of the acquisition, that Mr. Jef- 
ferson treated for the cession and annexation of 
Louisiana; and I have heard it suggested, that it 
was upon similar principles that some of the mem- 
bers of Mr. Monroe's Cabinet proceeded when 
they gave their opinions in favor of the constitu- 
tionahty of the iVlissouri Compromise act; but I 
wish to hold some converse with my southern 
friends upon this subject in my place in the Sen- 
ate before I yield my objections to this bill. I 
propose, sir, to discuss this question with candor 
and fairness; to give to all the arguments in its 
favor their due weight and importance, and then 
to consider whether they make out a case of over- 
ruling necessity; a case of such vital importance 
to the country generally, or to the South particu- 
larly, that I ought to surrender my objections to 
the measure. 

Sir, much time has been consumed, and theye 
has been a great deal of ingenuity displayed, in the 
discussion of points and questions of subordinate 
importance. The friends of the bill dilTer widely 
among themselves as to some of the doctrines and 
principles involved in the general subject. These 
differences have led to inquiries as to the source of 
the power heretofore exercised by Congress in 
legislating ifor the Territories — some deriving it 
from the express grant of the power to make all 
needful rules and regulations for the disposition of, 
or respecting, the public domain; and others main- 
tain that it results necessarily from the political 
sovereignty of the United States over all territory 
as soon as acquired or annexed. While some admit 
the power of the United States to legislate for ihe 
inhabitan ts of the Territories on all su I ijects of legit- 
imate and ordinary legislative control, yet deny 
its power to legislate upon the particular subject 
of slavery, as being inconsistent with the equal 
rights of the citizens of all the States secured by 
the Constitution. A greater number of the friends 
of the bill adopt a broader principle as the foun- 
dation of the policy of non-intervention by Con- 
gress upon the slave question in the Territories. 
Going back to the principle of the Revolution, they 
deny that Congress has any right to legislate for, 
or in any manner to interfere with, tiie internal 
affairs or institutions of the inhabitants of a Ter- 
ritory. They contend that it belongs to them as 
an inherent right. This is the principle of popu- 
lar sovereignty, or the right of self-govern meat, 
extended to the people of the Territories, and it is 
the principle upon which the bill under considera- 
tion is based. If well-founded, it seems to pre- 
clude Congress from organizing a government for 
them in any form, or of imposing any restrictions 



11 



or qualifications upon the absolute right of the M principle adopted in the Compromise acts of 1850, 

inhabitants, natives or foreij^ners, to govern them- and hail my full coticurrence*nd Hupport. I'ut in 
selves under such ori,'anic laws as they shall think the apjilicution of this princi|)le to the Territories 
best. The suicircstion of tliis principle, of llie proposed to he ors^anized by this hill, in order to 
ri^htoflhepeo|ileof the Territories, has given rise , i?ive it a free and unembarrassed operation, it is 
to^'a variety of incidental ([uestions. proposed to repeal the Missouri Compromise; and 

It seems to be admitted, by some of the advo- thus a f^reat practical «iueHtion is directly presented; 
cates of this principle, that Consjress may les^islate and one which, above all others, claims the dis- 
for the proteciion of the inhabitants of a Territory passionate reflection and consideration of every 
by or-janizin^ a ^'iverninent for them, and that Senator and every statesman of tiie country, north 
then tlie pow'er of Com^'iess ceases. Others con- or south: Is it wise, is it expedient to disturb the 
tend that Congress shoiiW retain a general super- Missouri Compromise.' Does the repeal of the 
visory control over territorial legislation, but are slavery restriction clause of the act of 1H:20 promise 
willing to concede the exclusive right to establish i such important and beneficent results to thecoun- 
Buch domestic institutions as they think jiroper. ' try th.U all objections should be yielded .> 
The honor:i!)le Senator from Michigan [Mr. Cass] It iy contended, with great earnestness, by the 
himself admits the ditliculty of determining the friends of this measure, tiiat it does give such 
precise point at which all legislation by Congress promise; and the highest talents and ability of 
relating to the Territories shall cease; and the in- the Senate have been arrayed to prove that there 
quiry as to whether any number of inhabitants, ; was nothing in the circumstances under which the 
however small, may be safely allowed to settle all Missouri compromise was adopted, or in the sub- 
questions of internal policy, is evidently one of', sequent history of the country connected with it, 
great embarrassment. The distinguished Senator ^ which can be objected to Us repeal. I propose to 
f*-omMichiganregardsthese,andoiherlikepoint8, |i notice brielly and fairly all the points suggested 
as questions for practical solution by Congress, in j or assumed in the arguments of the friends of this 
tlie exercise of common sense and a sound discre- Ij measure; and I think, sir, that before a dispaa- 
tion. Asto the questions which have been mooted i] sionate and uncommitted Senate, I could throw 
in relation to the source, or grant in the Consti- : out some suggestions which might lead honorable 
tution, from which is derived any power in Con- 
gress to legislate for the Territories at all, the 



Senators to doubt the correctness of some of the 
conclusions to which they have come; but, after 



best answer, undoubtedly, is, that Congress has !| the vote of last night, I can have but little hope of 
exercised the power in various forms, from the such a result from anything 1 can now say. 
foundation ofthe Government, and that the power Sir, it is contended that by applying the princi- 
has been found both safe and convenient, it would 'pie of non-intervention to the Territories, that 
not be safe, at this day, to look too closely into ; we shall harmonize the action of the Government 
tlie question ofthe power of Congress over the.: by conforming it to the principle of the corn- 
Territories, for we cannot go very far back 1 1 promise acts of 1850. Admitted. It is said that 
antil we find ourselves embarrassed by the ac- ij the slavery restriction clause of the act of 1«20 
knowledged unconstitutionality of the purchase Ij was a violation ofthe obligations ofthe treaty by 
and ann'exation of the whole territory ceded to '| which France ceded to the United Slates 'heTer- 
the United States by France. Greatinconvenience rilory of Louisiana. I admit it. It is contended 
mayarisefrom theconcession of theprincipleofthe that the restriction upon slavery imposed by the 
inherent right of self-government in the people of a 1 IVlissouri compromise was unjust to the South. 
Territory.'^Havingtheuncontrolledpoweroflegis- That is also true. 

lating, they may grant charters of incorporation i The attempt of the North in 1820 to interdict 
with e-vtraordinary privileges, create a public debt, slavery in Missouri, as a condition of her admis- 
aiid do many other things which may be greatly sion into the Union, and the continued resistance 
injurious to the welfare of the future State to which i offered to the application of that State for ad- 
Uie territoral government may give place; but we !i mission, until the South agreed to accept the 
must take the risk of unwise legislation in the ' proposition to interdict slavery in all the remain - 
Territories, if, from any cause, it becomes highly ing territory ceded by France lyms north of the 
expedient and necessary to the general welfare of line of 36^ 30', was just such a proceeding, that 
the country to do so. Those who hold to'the doc- i the great names invoked by the honorable Senator 
trine of the inherent right of self-government in ,i from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumker,] to sustain 
the inhabitants, will find no difficulty, of course, ! him in his course as an Abolitionist— Washing- 
in applyin"- the principle of non-intervention to the !■ ton, Franklin, Jetterson, and Hamilton, had they 
Territories! I leave it to the friends of the bill to ! been living at the time, anti-slavery m sentiment 
inquirewhetheritsprovisions,asitnowstands,are though they were, would have raised their united 
not, in some respects, inconsistent with the prin- , voices against it, as conceived in a spirit the very 
ciple upon which it is based. : reverse of that which controlled their own course 

If this measure shall appear to be as important j; when they gave their sanction to the Constitution; 
totheinterestsofthecountryasitsfriendsassume, I when they contributed the full weight of ttieir 
I shall feel no embarrassment arising from any ' great names and characters in conciliating and 
of the questions to which I have just alluded, in |. reconciling the strongest antagonisms of senti- 
eivin^r my support to the principle of non-inter- ! ment and interests between the North and the 
vention, embraced in the provisions ofthe bill I South; and' in blending ah in one great organic 
before the Senate. I think it is a wise and expe- instrument of Union, unparalle ed in the wisdom 
dient principle, for general application; and upon of its provisions and the grandeur of its results, 
this point it will be perceived that there is no dif- Jefferson did raise his voice against it, but untiap- 
ference between myself and any of my southern pily his glorious compatriots of the Revolution 
friends. It is not a new principie. It was the .; had passed away, and he, in his retirement, was 



12 



no longer able to control the activepassions of the 
day. 

It suits the purposes of the professional philan- 
thropists and agitators of the North to represent 
tiie celebrated anti-slavery extension movement in 
1820 as founded exclusively on principles of hu- 
manity and opposition to the institution of slavery 
in the South. Noihing could be more deceptive 
or untrue. The great leaders in that movement 
were influenced by no such sympathy for the 
slave; they had no such horror of the nistitution 
itself as to induce them to adopt a policy so likely 
to lay the foujidation of a lasting feud between the 
North and the South. There were other consider- 
ations which impelled them, of a very dilTerent 
nature, and quite as repugnant to their feelings as 
slavery. These were the long continued, and, 
apparently, never-ending sway of the Virginia 
dynasty; and the perpetual exclusion from power 
with which the preponderating influence of the 
South at that period seemed to threaten them. 
Urged by these strong passions, they had no diffi- 
culty, through the press and the pulpit, to rouse 
into activity the whole latent yet powerful anti- 
slavery feeling in the North. It was a great party 
and political movement; and the anti-slavery sen- 
timent, so universal at the North, was the chief 
element of its success. 

It is further urged by the friends of this bill, 
that Congress had no constitutional power to 
enact the Alissouri compromise, and therefore 
they contend it ought to be repealed. The power 
of Congress to impose a perpetual restriction upon 
slavery over any portion of the territory of the 
United States, was strongly questioned at the time 
of the adoption of the measure; and looking at the 
question as one of constitutional construction, I 
agree with my southern friends that no such power 
can be fairly deduced from any grant in the Con- 
stitution. Yet it was accepted by the South, and 
acquiesced in as a measure of compromise between 
the North and the South, and its constitutionality 
was sanctioned 'by President Monroe and his 
Cabinet. 

Again, it has been alleged that the Missouri 
compromise, which is now claimed to have be- 
come a compact of so sacred a character that to 
repeal it would be a breach of good faith on the 

?art of the South, has been repudiated by the 
forth itself; and that the North has never ac- ; 
quiesced in it as a settlement or concession of the ; 
right of the South to introduce slavery into the 
territory south of 30° 3U'. That the North, in 
1830, opposed the extension of the Missouri com- 
promise line, as established in 1820, to the Pacific, 
over any part of the territory acquired from Mex- ; 
ico, is true. It has also been urged, in the course ! 
of the debate, that the North opposed the admis- 
sion of Arkansas, lying south of the line of 3(JO 
30', into the Union, on the ground that slavery ' 
was recognized in its constitution; but I believe 
it has been successfully shown that no such oppo- i 
sition was made. But, sir, it is true that the Mis- i 
souri compromise has been repudiated, and has 
never been acquiesced in as a valid compact by a 
class of citizens at the North, made up of Abo- 
litionists proper, and the more mischievous type 
of anti-slavery agitators, which is found repre- ■ 
sented on this floor. They repudiate all compro- i 
mises — the compromise of 1820 and 1850 alike, j 
Their hostility to the institution of slavery in the , 



I South is uncompromising. The Senator from 
Ohio, [Mr. Chase,] and the Senator from Massa- 
chusetts, [Mr. Sumner,] have boldly proclaimed 
the principles which will control their course upon 
this subject. The Senator from Ohio avows the 
purpose to agitate the question until slavery shall 
be abolished in theDistrictof Columbia, and every- 
where else, within the control of Congress. They 
admit that slavery where it exists in the Slates they 
cannot reach through Congress; but they give no 
pledge that when it is abolished in this District, 
they will cease their agitation — nor will they. 
Though they profess to make no war upon the 
Constitution, yet such is their concern for freedom 
and free labor, and their hostility to slavery and 
slave labor, that if in their efforts to vindicate the 
rights of the one and abolish the other the Union 
should perish, they would be sufficiently consoled 
for the ruin they had brought upon the country 
by the reflection that they had been true to the 
principles they professed. 

Do what you may, or forbear to do what you 
may now, these gentlemen are the inexorable foes 
of the institutions of the South. They not only 
repudiate the compromises of 1820 and 1850, but 
the compromises of that greater compact tor the 
settlement of all conflicting sentiments and inter- 
ests between the North and the South — the Con- 
stitution. I admit, then, that the North has op- 
posed the extension of the line of 30° 30' to the 
Pacific; and that the class of agitators in the North 
to whom I have alluded never acquiesced in it. 

Some of the friends of this bill have denied that 
the slavery restriction clause of the act of 1820 
was any part of the Missouri compromise. They 
assert that this clause of the act of 1820 was not 
acquiesced in by the North as a settlement of the 
question; that the admission of Missouri into 
the Union was still opposed by the North in 1821, 
on the ground that the constitution formed and 
presented by the people of Missouri, undertheact 
of 1820, prohibited the Legislature from passing 
any law authorizing mulatloes, or other free per- 
sons of color, to emigrate to the State; and it is 
contended that the admission of Missouri into the 
Union was the result of a compromise of that ques- 
tion; and that, is now contended by gentlemen to 
have been the real Missouri compromise. 

That ofiposition was made by the North to the 
final admission of Missouri in 1821, on the ground 
stated, is true; but the inference drawn from that 
fact by the very ingenious and distinguished gen- 
tleman who brought it to our notice, that is to say, 
that the slavery restriction clause of the act of 
1S20 had nothing to do with the question of the 
admission of Missouri into the Union, or, in other 
words, that it formed no part of the compact or 
understanding between the North and the South 
which led to that result, I think can scarcely find 
any support in the judgment of the country. 

Having thus gone over all the grounds of objec- 
tion suggested against the validity of the Missouri 
compromise, I trust it will be seen that I am not 
disposed to controvert them either as to fact or 
doctrine, with such exceptions only as upon more 
deliberate consideration, by those who asserted 
them, will be allowed to be well taken. 

But, sir, admitting them, with the exceptions I 
have stated, to be incontrovertibly true, still the 
main question remains to be considered and de- 
cided; Do these facts and doctrines demonstrate 



13 



the expediency of tlisturbintj the Miesouri com- 
promise under existing; circ.umstnnces? nnd in 
comin;^ to lui aflirmtUive conclusion upon this 
question I hesiiiUe, I pause. 

1 have listened with attention to nil the luminous 
expositions of theories of constitutional construc- 
tion, and of popular sovereignty; to the infjenions 
application of doctrinal points to (pieslions of com- 
pacts and compromises by tiie friends of this meas- 
ure. The ([uestioii has been fruitful of themes f(ir 
dialectii', display; for the exhibition of ijreat powers 
of analysis and loj^ical acumen; but the whole ar- 
gument has been siiif^uliiriy defective and unsaiis- 
J'actory upon the main (|uestion, What practical 
advantage or benefii to tlie country, generally, or 
to the South in particidar, will the repeal of the 
Missouri compromise secure.' j 

It is asserted with |:reat confidence that the np- 
plica'ion of the principle of non-intervention to i 
these Territories, and the repeal of the Mie.-jouri • 
compromise, will have the ellect to transfer to the 
local lejriijlatures, the Territories and States, and 
to relieve Congress for the future from, the most ; 
dangerous and distracting subject of controversy i 
which ever has, or ever can disturb its delibera- j 
tion; that the source of those sectional conllicts 
rtnd agitations upon the subject of slavery, which i 
have moi'e than once threatened the peiice of the; 
co^jntry, will be removed; that justice will be done 
to the South; that the Constitution will be restored 
end vindicated; and a new guarantee be provided ! 
for the stability of the Union. I need not say that ' 
if one half of the many beneficent results predicated ' 
of this measure oyi be shown to follow iis a prob- 
able" consequence of its adoption, I would no ( 
longer hesitate to give it my support; but, unfor- 
tunately, the argument has proceeded no further 
ttian the a;Hrmation, without showing how these 
results must or will follow. Some getitlemen, 
delighted at the prospect of seeing a favorite theory 
of the right of the inhabitants of a Territory to 
govern themselves recognized by a vote of Con- ' 
grass — others in ecstasies with the prospect of a 
similar recognition of some favorite notion or doc-| 
trine of constitutional interpretation, after expend-: 
ing the whole force of their great ability in eluci- 
dating their respective creeds, forthwith jump to ' 
the conclusion that the happie.sl results will neces- 
eariiy and inevitably follow the adoption of this , 
nieosure. i 

Upon what rational calculation do gentlemen 
assume that they can establish, upon a firm foun-. 
dation, any one of the favorite principles or doc- 
trines incorporated in this bill, and especially when 
they consider, as they ought, the inherent element 
of disturbance which exists in the nature of the 
subject.' How estaltlish beyond future contro- 
versy the principle of non-intervention by a vote, 
of this Congress which the next, or any subse- 
quent Congress, may annul .'' How restore a vio- 
lated Constitution, settle a question of constitu- 
tional power, or a rule of constitutional construc- 
tion, when so many of the interests and passions 
connected with these questions are necessarily po- 1 
litical, and liable to change and vibrate with the 
changing interests and composition of parties.' 
Congress, by its votes, has often reversed the de- 
cisions of the judicial department of the Govern- ! 
nient on questions of constitutional power and 
construction, and still oftener its own decisions, i 
In the very nature of things, no such atability as ., 



in argued can be given to any principle which this 
' Congress may siuiction by ii8 vote on this bill. 

If this be so, how ran thitrmeauure furni.sh any 
new guarantee for the [>reHerviition of the Union.' 
Cr how transfer to ihe Territories and lake away 
from CongreHM those diatractiiig and HectionnI ques- 
tions which BO often intrude ihrmselveH here? 
And, above all, how will tlie paHHa;;c of this bill 
remove the source of those plaver\' lo^itationa at 
the North, which have heretof ue, upon two mem- 
orable occusiutiR, filled the country with alarm for 
the safety of the Union .' Is there no danger tliiU, 
inatead of staunching, you will open ufreah " Ihia 
bleeding wound of the country .' ' 

Air. President, take the i>rovi8ion.'j of the bill 
as it stand.s ainended; atid 8up[)ose the inhubil- 
ants, less or more in number, of one of thrae 
Territories, as soon as their government is organ- 
ized, should establi.sh slavery by law, would that 
' (|uiet agitation in the Ps'orth ? Or would it not be 
more rational to conclude that it would be a sound- 
ing of the tocsin for a general rally of all the 
worst elements of the Abolition faction at the 
North, stimulated and supported by great num- 
bers of northern citizens who have heretofore 
given no countenance to their exce.sses .' Would 
not a more widelydill'used and a more iiiten.''e anti- 
slavery seniiment be awakened than has ever ex- 
i isted at any former period; prepared and determ- 
ined, when the proper time should come, to resist 
the application of the new slave Stale to be ad- 
mitted into the Union .' 

But let us now suppose that slavery shall not 
be introduced into either of the.se Territories un- 
der the sanction of a territorial law — and it is the 
general opinion of those who have spoken in this 
debate that it will not — will agitation then cease ? 
Is there no ground to apprehend that the impres- 
sion produced by the repeal of the Missouri com- 
promise upon the people of the North will settle 
down into a more decided and deep-rooted hostility 
to slavery and the whole South than could, under 
any other circumstances likely to occur in future, 
be provoked.' I speak not of that chiss of north- 
ern citizens to which the Senator from Massachu- 
setts, [Mr. Sn.MXER,] and the Senator from Ohio, 
[.Mr. CiiASF,,] and their followers, belong — pro- 
fessional agitators, who avow their purpose of 
continued agitation; and whether this bill passes 
or not, they will do their utmost to fan the nres of 
fanaticism, and inflame every anti-soutl.ern feeling 
and prejudice in the North. And let me say that 
nothing we could do would more {gainfully disturb 
thepresentcomposureofthosegenilemen — no more 
fatal blow to their present prospects could begiven, 
than to reject this bill. But I was speaking of the 
probable ellect of the pa<'sage of this bill upon a 
far different class of northern citizens. 1 allude 
to that body of sober-minded and reflecting cit- 
izens who, though anti-slavery in their sentiments, 
have never approved the fanatical ravings and mis- 
chievous machinations of the various Abolition 
societies and sects — who have had no disposition 
to disturb or evade any of the compromises or 
guarantees of the Constitution for the protection 
of the rights of the slaveholder; but who may 
yet entertain feelings of decided hostility to the 
introduction of slavery into any territories here- 
tofore considered free territory. Is there no just 
ground to apprehend that the repeal of the Mis- 
souri compromise, which, whether constitutional 



14 



or not, for more than thirty years has been re- 
garded in the North as a valid settlement of a line 
north of which slavery could never go — 1 repeat, 
is there no danger to be apprehended that the re- 
peal of that settlement will impart a stronger and 
deeper complexion to the anti-slavery sentiment 
of this class of northern citizens? 

I know it has been said that all such apprehen- 
sions are but the suggestions of timidity; that a 
better feeling and more liberal sentiments toward 
the South and southern institutions begin to prevail 
at the North than formerly. Mr. President, let 
us inquire a moment whether this prevalence of a 
more liberal feeling towards southern institutions 
can be relied upon as furnishing any assurance 
that no future manifestation of their anti-slavery 
Bcntiments will menace the peace and harmony of 
the country? The people of the North imbibed 
their anti-slavery sentiments in early life — in the 
period of their inf;\ncy,at the domestic fireside, in 
the nursery, in the primary and high schools — 
they have had them confirmed in the lecture- 
room, in the church, and by the popular literature 
of the day. A sentiment thus deeply implanted 
in the hearts of a whole population, though it 
may be ordinarily quiet, and seldom break forth 
into fierce a2:itation, yet we have seen, in the his- 
tory of the Missouri compromise, how promptly, 
£md with what effect it may be brought to ex- 
ercise its influence on occasion. Louisiana had 
been admitted as a slave State in 1812, Missis- 
sippi in 1817, and Alabama in 1819, without op- 
position; and all the while scarcely a conscious- 
ness seemed to pervade the country that there 
was any diversity of institution or sentiment in the 
North and in the South which could give rise to 
any serious controversy; but in 1820, when Mis- 
souri applied for admission into the Union, sud- 
denly the whole North rose at the summons of 
their political leaders, and protested against it. 

Sir, I believe there is a better feeling prevailing 
at the North towards the South than formerly; 
but would it not be wise on the part of the South 
to do nothing to reverse the current of that better 
feeling, unless urged by some great necessity in 
vindication of its rights? 

But it is said that these anti-slavery feelings at 
the North are nothing more than the prejudices of 
education and a false philanthropy. Admit them 
to be nothing more than prejudices; are they, 
therefore, to be disregarded by statesmen, who 
have the control of the affairs of a great country 
in their hands? An eminent British statesman, 
I do not now remember who, once said of a co- 
temporary, that but for one defect, he would be 
the greatest statesman of the times; that was, 
that he had no regard for public prejudices of any 
kind; and whatever measure appeared to him to 
he right and proper in itself he would insist upon, 
though it might excite the opposition and inflame 
the passions of the whole country. 

Mr. PETTIT. He was right, and he ought to 
have done so. 

Mr. BELL. 1 cannot agree with the Senator; 
but I say to him frankly that occasions may arise 
■when I would be as little disposed to yield to 
prejudices as any man in or out of this Chamber, 
especially when these prejudices are sectional, and 
when any great wrong or injustice shall be done 
by one section of the Union to another. In such 
a case, should time and chance offer an opportu- 



nity of redress, then I would take the risk of 
deepening and defying those prejudices. I know 
it may be said that this is precisely such a case aa 
I have here presented. A great wrong, it is 
alleged, has been done to the South by the Mis- 
souri compromise, and chance has presented the 
opportunity for redress; and this brings up fairly 
the inquiry, whether the passage of this bill is of 
such importance to the interests of the South that 
every southern Senator should support it, what- 
ever scruples he may have in relation to some of 
its provisions? What has the South to gain by 
the adoption of this measure ? Will the passage 
of this bill redress any wrong or injustice here- 
tofore done by the North to the South ? I have 
already admitted that injustice was done to the 
South bv the Missouri compromise; but, after 
all, what was the extent of that injustice? I 
take it for granted that there is not a man who 
has ever considered those laws which in this 
country control the geographical extension or 
dift'usion of slavery, who will pretend that if the 
Missouri compromise act had never been passed 
slavery would have gone north of the northern 
boundary of Missouri. Then the whole extent 
of the wrong done the South by that measure 
was to prohibit slavery between that boundary 
and the line of 36° 30'; and not even to that ex- 
tent, unless it shall turn out that this interme- 
diate territory is adapted to slave labor. In this 
intermediate territory all will agree that such is 
the character of the country generally — so larsfe 
a portion of it consisting of sterile desert — that 
but one slave State could, under any circum- 
stances, be formed within its limits. Now, this 
being the extent of the wrong done the South by 
the Missouri compromise, will this bill, if it shall 
pass, redress it? Will slavery be established in 
the Kansas Territory proposed to be organized 
under its provisions? Does any one, who has 
fully considered the subject, believe that this Ter- 
ritory will become a slave State? 

I have inquired with some diligence into the 
grounds upon which any expectation which may 
exist in the South, that slavery will be established 
in this Territory, is founded. A few gentlemen 
with v/hom I have conversed think that it may, 
but the greater number, with more reason, concur 
in the opinion that it never will. A few house- 
hold and other slaves may be taken into the Ter- 
ritory of Kansas, if this bill shall pass, for the 
convenience of their labor in opening and prepar- 
ing for cultivation new farms, and with a vae:ue 
expectation that slavery may be authorized. Bat 
as the Territory does not revert to the condition 
of slave territory by the provisions of this bill 
but few will take that risk. The great uncertainty 
as to what the sentiment of the majority of tlM 
settlers on the question of slavery or no slavery 
will be, or rather the probabilit}' that slavery will 
be prohibited, will deter every prudent slaveholder 
from emigrating to the Territory with liis slaves; 
especially as they will see that the strongest tide 
of immigration will flow in from the North, and 
from abroad, bringing with them all their anti- 
slavery prejudices. 

Asrain, the slaveholder will know, that, should 
theTerritorial Legislaturesanction slavery, yet that 
the ordeal of admission into the Union as a State 
will still have to be passed before he will feel secure 
in his property. The example of Missouri would 



15 



be before him. Besides, there will be no great 
inducement in the location or chariicter of the soil 
to take slaves there. The princi|ial settlements 
will be upon the best lands, and those will be 
found upon or near the great lines of immigration 
to California and Oregon; and the most profitable 
and marketaljle products will be jnst such as can 
be grown more cheaply by free labor — breadstuds 
and live stock. I am informed that many of the 
slaveholders of Missouri are now seeking a more 
genial clime, and a soil better adapted to slave 
labor in the broad and rich domain of Texas; and 
it will not be long after Kan.sas shall become 
a free Kiate, that Missouri, bounded on three 
sides by free States, will cease to be a slave State. 
And this, sir, will most probably be the measure 
of the redress which the South will derive from 
this bill for any wrong or injustice done it by the 
Missouri compromise. 

But it is earnestly insisted that the principle of 
non-intervention, proposed to be established by 
this bill, will be of the greatest value and import- 
ance to the South, whether slavery shall be author- 
ized in these Territories or not. it will secure the 
just rights of the South in ail timN to come. I 
have already shown that you can establish per- 
manently no principle by this bill. But I will 
assume that the vote which may be given on the 
passage of this bill, giving the sanction of Con- 
gress to the principle of non-intervention, shall 
stand unrepealed, and become the established doc- 
trine of the country; still the question recurs, of 
what practical value will it be to the South.' Does 
any southern man suppose that slavery will ever 
go into any of the Territories which , at any future 
time, may be carved out of the large extent of 
country included within the bounds of tiie Ne- 
braska Territory, as proposed to be organized by 
this bill.' I take it for granted that no such idea 
is entertained by any one. Where is the other 
and remaining territory of the United States to 
which this principle of non-intervention can be 
made available, or of any value to the South! 
The territory we.=!t of Arkansas will be more irrev- 
ocably dedicated to the exclusive possession of the 
Indians, and more efiectually barred a;;ainst the 
formation of a new slave State, under the opera- 
tion of this bill, than heretofore; for it will be the 
last and only retreat of the emigrant and other 
tribes now in the territory west of Missouri. Utah 
and New Mexico are already organized Territo- 
ries, according to the principle of non-interven- 
tion. The right to form new slave States out of 
the ample territory of Texas is guarantied liy a 
compact far safer and stronger than any which 
Congress can furnish by giving its sanction to 
this measure. 

There is a little spot of hopeles.sly barren coun- 
try, of some few thousand square miles in extent, 
ceded to the United States by Texas, under a pro- 
vision of the compromise acts of 1850, to which ; 
this principle of non-intervention, if established, 
may be applied, if it can be safely done without 
violating the compact under which Texas came 
into the Union, and that is all ! And is it for this 
poor boon — if my friends will allow the expres- 
sion — this phantom ! that we are called upon to 
sanction a measure which will impart new life and - 
vigor — arm with new heads and fan£:s, the now 
half-conquered Hydra of the North? Is it for this! 
that we are called upon to give promise of a better 



day to those political agitators at the North, 
who have staked their whole fortunes and hopes 
of [lower upon the siicce.ssful furniaiioii of a great 
northern and sectional party — the last and most 
fatal evil that can befall the country; for its con- 
summation will be the destruction of the Consti- 
tution and the extinction of public liberty.' Is it 
for this! that we are called upon to supply new 
wea|)ons of warfare to all the enemies i>f th« 
South; and to invite a combination of Whig 
Free-Soilers, Soft Shell and Independent Demo- 
crats, Liberty Men, Abolitionists, Socialists, and 
Atheists, founded ufion no common principle but 
hostility to the South — no common object out ihs 
acquisition of power and the spoils? 

But, Mr. President, it is said that we may malte 
acquisitions of territory hereafter — perhaps from 
Mexico — and that then the South will have the 
benefit of the [irinciple of non-intervention recog- 
nized in this bill. 1 fear, sir, that this, too, will 
prove a phantom; but if ever any such acquisition 
of new territory shall be made — and I hope th« 
date of such acquisitions will be far in the future — 
1 trust it will be under the influence of some great 
national and patriotic impulse — prompted by con- 
siderations of a common interest, and a policy 
which knows no North, no South; and these will 
furnish far stronger guarantees of the rights of tb« 
South in any such acquisitions, than any vote of 
Congress in favor of this measure. But if it be 
deemed of any — the slightest — importance to any 
future interest of the South that the sentiment of 
this Congress shall be expressed in favor of the 
principle of non-intervention, why not bring for- 
ward a joint resolution declaratory of the principle? 

1 have already said that there is no dilTerence 
between myself and my southern friends in rela- 
tion to this principle. I will vote for such a reso- 
ution most cheerfully. I have said already, and 
1 repeat, that if I could take the view of the im- 
portance of this measure to the country which 
my southern friends do — cutting olT the source of 
ail future controversy between the North and the 
South — putting an end to agitiuion in both sec- 
tions upon the subject of slavery — I would feel 
justified in waiving tdl my objections to this bill, 
and in uniting heartily with them in its support. 
We difler only as to the results of the measure. 

Sir, a reason has been urged why every south- 
ern Senator should support this bill which I have 
not yet noticed. A great, truly national, and pat- 
riotic party, it is suggested, is now in the ascend- 
ency at the North, which makes a voluntary 
tender of the principle of non-intervention to ih« 
acceptance of the South, to be a rule by which 
all questions relating to slavery in the Territories 
may hereafter be settled; and it is insisted that a 
sense of gratitude, if nothing else, should rally 
the whole South in its support. I ackowledgetKe 
obligation for their generous intentions; butunlees 
some more certain and .substantial benefit can be 
derived from the provi-sions of this bill than I can 
detect, I think our gratitude to those gentlemen 
of the North who have stood so generously and 
boldly by the South in sustaining the compromise 
acts of 1850, as well as those who are now pre- 
pared to sustain the provisions of this bill, will be 
best shown by accepting nothing, insisting upon 
nothing, that can imperil their present ascendency. 
As a southern man, 1 would desire to husband all 
heir strength. The time may come, the occasion 



16 



may not be far distant, when their unbroken en- 
ergies may be required in sustaining measures and 
interests of the greatest practical advantage to the 
whole country. 

1 have heard it suggested by southern gentle- 
men that we may want Cuba. Ah! sir, Cuba. 
Had this troubling of the bitter waters of sectional 
strife been a movement, not for the acquisition of 
Cuba by conquest, but for the preservation of 
Cuba as she is — had it been a movement to main- 
tain the principle of non-intervention against the 
intermeddling policy of Great Britain and France 
in the affairs of that beautiful island, and to pre- 
serve it agamst the fate to which it seems to be 
verging — thatofbecominga semi-barbarous power 
— a second Hayti, just upon oursouthern borders; 
I repeat, had this been a movement to prevent 
such a catastrophe as that, 1 would have been pre- 
pared to give it my cordial support. 

Mr. President, unless all the signs of the times 
are deceptive, we are, at this moment, on the eve 
of great events. A war between the great Powers 
of Europe seems to be inevitable; and a general 
convulsion of the Old World seems not improb- 
able. In either event, none but the Omniscient 
Ruler of all things can know how we are to escape 
the general calamity; or how soon we may be 
forced, in vindication of our national rights, to | it; but, sir, 1 have not, and must take my seat. 



become p LIBRARY OF CONGRESS the 

this greai 011 897 779 8 ^ited, 
will not be luriner ueveiupeu uy jjiuLccuingS on 
their part which can no longer be patiently sub- 
mitted to. 

It is for this reason, among others, that 1 so 
deeply regret the recurrence of any cause for the 
renewal of those fierce sectional cor.lroversiea 
which tend so much to distract the national coun- 
cils and impair the national energies. The North 
and the South united, and cordial in tlie vindica- 
tion of a national quarrel, this country has nothing 
to fear from any conflict with foreign Powers, 
come when it may. 

. Mr. President, i had proposed, if I had strength, 
to say something more on the suliject of this dan- 
gerous element of national discord — slavery agita- 
tion. I should like, if I had strength, to speak of 
the true method of chaining down this dragon 
which besets our path, and interposes a barrier to 
the development of a civilization v.'hich might 
finally bring all the world to admire and imitate 



Printed at ttie Congressional Globe Office. 



/^** 



UBRARYOFCOMGRESS 




011897 779 8 



